Europeanisation at the urban level: Evaluating the impact of the EU on local governance in Britain

Britain in Europe and Europe in Britain: The Europeanisation of British Politics? Paper presented to the UACES/ESRC One-Day Conference Sheffield, 16 July 2004 Europeanisation at the urban level: Evaluating the impact of the EU on local governance in Britain Adam Marshall Centre of International Studies, University of Cambridge 17 Mill Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1RX ajbmarshall@cantab.net DRAFT please do not cite without permission

Marshall 1 ABSTRACT EU initiatives provide urban institutions and actors across Europe with new and unprecedented access to information, legitimacy, and not least, financial support. From established local authorities to fledgling neighbourhood partnerships, actors across the urban spectrum see increased European involvement as a central component of innovative governance. Using the framework articulated by the UACES/ESRC study group on the Europeanisation of British Politics and Policy-Making, this paper argues that researchers must extend the study of Europeanisation to the urban level. I argue that European working provokes shifts in the institutionalised norms, beliefs, and values of British urban actors, and use a four-part typology of urban Europeanisation to evaluate this phenomenon with reference to Birmingham and Glasgow. The paper emphasises that most Europeanisation occurring among British urban actors has been voluntary-indirect both local authorities and nonstatutory actors have embraced European working as a result of their interaction with EU Structural Fund programmes over the course of the past two decades. 1. INTRODUCTION As the approach developed by Ian Bache and Andrew Jordan (2004) notes, diverse and heterogeneous notions of Europeanisation have reinvigorated debate about the impact of the EU on governance at and below the level of the nation-state. While it is commonly accepted that European pressures have created a multi-stage process of domestic change in EU member-states (see, inter alia, Bulmer and Radaelli 2004), the research agenda surrounding Europeanisation has not yet investigated the impact of these pressures within the complex world of urban governance. In cities across Britain and the continent, actors and institutions have adapted to the need to work on a European playing field. This paper argues that, thanks to the unique role played by cities in both territorial and political hierarchies, it is critical to investigate urban-level Europeanisation in order to develop a more complete understanding of the EU impact on British politics and policy-making. This study contends that the most common form of Europeanisation in urban areas is the classical top-down variant, where local institutional norms change following sustained

Marshall 2 interaction with EU policies (especially the Structural Funds). For the most part, this has been voluntary-indirect Europeanisation with local authorities, NGOs and regeneration partnerships adapting their organisational structures in order to derive maximum benefit from EU financial resources. However, I have also identified elements of cross-load and upload Europeanisation, which are increasingly practiced by British local authorities seeking to spread best-practice lessons through trans-national networks or to influence the EU s emerging urban policy agenda. The diverse points of contact between the European and urban territorial systems show that local-level Europeanisation is not easily definable or reducible, nor can it merely be subsumed into broader discussion on regional Europeanisation thanks to infra-regional variation in governance norms. This paper seeks to develop our understanding of the process of urban Europeanisation, focusing specifically on the experience of two British cities. Evidence from Birmingham and Glasgow suggests that there is a distinct, two-way process of Europeanisation occurring at the urban level, driven primarily by the availability of large quantities of EU Structural Funding the instrument whereby European adaptational pressures are brought to bear on urban institutions and actors. The selection of two cities which have benefited from Structural Funding allows us to test the hypothesis that a strong positive correlation exists between the presence of EU financial assistance and the magnitude of Europeanisation in urban areas. After working to situate urban-level Europeanisation within the broader theoretical debate and the British case, the paper examines four interrelated variants of Europeanisation in the cities of Birmingham and Glasgow. These cases reveal that it is critical to differentiate between regional adaptation, one of the chief themes of the evolving Europeanisation research agenda, and the more subtle types of adjustment occurring within cities and metropolitan sub-regions. Finally, the paper draws some preliminary conclusions with regard to the impact of urban-level Europeanisation in the British political system. It argues, finally, that as Brussels acquires additional competencies for regeneration and environmental issues, interaction between British localities and Brussels will become increasingly dynamic rendering urban-level Europeanisation an ever-stronger influence on local affairs.

Marshall 3 2. WHY ISOLATE EUROPEANISATION AT THE URBAN LEVEL? The bulk of existing research on Europeanisation has concentrated on the phenomenon s impact on the national and regional territorial levels. Relatively few studies have gone on to investigate how European initiatives have affected sub-regional governance. Numerous observers, including sociologists, planners and political scientists, emphasise the distinctiveness of cities vis-à-vis other territorial levels of governance and organisation (Harding 1997; Le Galès and Harding 1998; Heidenreich 1998; Smith 1998; Brenner 1999; Le Galès 2002). Commentators and scholars across the fields of political science, geography, planning and economics all agree that urban governance has specific characteristics that distinguish it from the broader study of sub-national politics. Although Michael Keating and other new regionalists have argued that the emergence of stronger sub-national identities has promoted a reterritorialisation of European space (Keating 1997, 2001), their work has not been well-linked to the paradigms of Europeanisation studied by Olsen (2002), Green Cowles et al (2001) and others. notion that The framework for urban-level Europeanisation articulated below takes up Keating s city-regions are becoming more heterogeneous, multi-cultural and pluralist. New demands are being placed on the political agenda, from strategies of economic development, through environmental concerns, to issues of social justice and identity politics. Yet the policy options available to city-regions as political systems are constrained by the external competitive environment. Here lies the dilemma of contemporary urban and regional politics (Keating 2001: 387). Thus, the internal and external constraints that urban areas face are unique and cannot simply be compared to the pressures experienced by constitutional regions, rural areas or small towns. Thanks to the unique nature of urban governance, I argue that it is critical to isolate Europeanisation in cities from sub-national Europeanisation in more general terms. By modifying the analytical framework set out by Bache and Jordan, the following sections seek to provide a generalisable but context-sensitive approach that will enable researchers to better understand how the phenomenon of Europeanisation affects local and neighbourhoodlevel actors across the British Isles. 3. URBAN EUROPEANISATION A NEW ANALYTICAL PARADIGM

Marshall 4 In recent years, a huge quantity of research focused on the role of sub-national governments in European affairs has indicated the existence of a process of Europeanisation within the nation-state (Bache et al 1996; Bomberg and Peterson 1996, 1998; Goldsmith and Klausen 1997; Goldsmith and Sperling 1997; John 1996a, 1996b, 1998, 2000, 2001; A Smith 1998; R Smith 1999). However, as the perspectives articulated in this very conference show, the concept of domestic-level Europeanisation lacks a paradigmatic consistency, and is often employed as an explanatory factor for changes in institutional structures or actor behaviour without careful elaboration (Olsen 2000, 2001; Harmsen and Wilson 2000). How, then, can the very general concept of Europeanisation as domestic adaptation be made more relevant to the urban context? In order to assess the impact of Europeanisation at the urban level in Britain, it is appropriate to adopt much of the definition articulated by Ian Bache and Andrew Jordan: the reorientation or reshaping of aspects of politics in the domestic arena in ways that reflect the policies, practices and preferences of European level actors, as advanced through EU initiatives and decisions (Bache and Jordan 2004). However, in order to account for the unique political networks dominating territorial politics at the urban level, it is necessary to add a fourth category participants. EU-financed programmes, largely because of their requirements for long-term partnership working, force the expansion of the number of players at the local decision-making table, bringing non-governmental organisations, representatives from the community and voluntary sectors, business leaders, and other social partners into the increasingly complex world of urban governance (Marshall 2003a, 2003b; Bache and Marshall 2004; A Smith 1998; Le Galès 2002). These new participants often play a crucial role in urban governance, and their EU-mandated presence alongside established local actors catalyses bottom-up pressure for institutional change over time. I argue that there exist two principal pathways for Europeanisation in British cities: one a classical, top-down form of EU-induced change in the domestic arena, and the other a more subtle variant incorporating uploading and cross-loading. These pathways include: 1. Download Europeanisation at the urban level: Changes in policies, practices, preferences or participants within local systems of governance, arising from the negotiation and implementation of EU Structural Fund programmes.

Marshall 5 This, the principal form of urban Europeanisation, is explored below with regard to local authorities, NGOs and regeneration partnerships. Although catalysed initially by coerciveindirect pressures for joined-up working, this top-down variant has been largely voluntaryindirect in nature, with urban actors and institutions adjusting their procedures and operations to take advantage of funding (and opportunities to increase their political clout). Although the regulations surrounding EU Structural Funding have created some coercive-direct Europeanisation as evidenced by the 1992 RECHAR controversy (McAleavey 1995) this has occurred principally at national level. Whereas observations presented below show that actors in British cities adapted voluntarily and enthusiastically to EU pressures, Whitehall did so only under threat from the European Commission in order to safeguard overall Structural Fund allocations for the UK. 2. Upload Europeanisation at the urban level: The transfer of innovative urban practices to the supra-national arena, resulting in the incorporation of locallyinspired initiatives in EU programmes or other urban frameworks. This variant, which encompasses horizontal transfer or cross-loading between cities as well as upload to the European policy stage, addresses the less-ubiquitous literature on Europeanisation as policy transfer. I argue that this second basic form of Europeanisation allows us to go beyond Benz and Eberlein s (1999) narrowly-tailored focus on the download of EU regional and structural policies, in order to understand how groundbreaking local innovations such as best practice in physical regeneration or social inclusion can be assimilated into EU policy frameworks over time. Peter John notes that Europeanisation is a process whereby European ideas and practices transfer to the core of local decision-making as well as from local policy-making arenas to the supranational level. The European function is a means whereby public authorities can innovate and initiate policies and programmes in the context of trans-national co-operation and European policy-making (John 2001: 73). I shall attempt to address this two-way interaction, using the definitions articulated above, with specific reference to examples drawn from the cities of Birmingham and Glasgow. The European turn experienced by urban actors and institutions in recent years is a process which can only be examined by combining elements of the Europeanisation approach with a

Marshall 6 nuanced understanding of urban governance, local dynamics, and domestic contextual factors. The notions of Europeanisation upon which this paper draws derive from a New Institutionalist perspective (March and Olsen 1989, 1998; Steinmo and Thelen 1992; Hall and Taylor 1996; Bulmer 1994, 1995; Lowndes 2001, 2002; Harmsen 2000). Within all British cities interacting with the European Union, researchers must investigate the impact of mediating institutions at multiple territorial levels, as these attenuate processes of Europeanisation and ensure that unique and long-standing patterns of local governance are not subsumed into a single, reductionist paradigm. Building on a model articulated by Green Cowles et al (2001), I argue that urban engagement with EU policies results in a four-stage pattern of interaction and adjustment: EUROPEANISATION AT THE URBAN LEVEL 1. EU Initiative (Structural Fund/Community Initiatives/Urban Pilot Projects)! 2. Adaptational Pressures ( degree of fit between EU/domestic norms)! 3. Mediating Institutions (local, regional, national institutional context)! 4. Urban Structural Change (institutional shifts / governance change) 1 In Britain, mis-fit (Börzel and Risse 2000; Radaelli 2000; Green Cowles et al 2001) between the cohesion-oriented principles of EU policies and the competition-based urban policy pursued by Whitehall since the 1980s 2 ensured that adaptational pressures arose in cities where domestic and European regeneration initiatives existed side-by-side. Using the definition of urban-level Europeanisation articulated above, it is possible to examine the types of structural change wrought by this mis-fit despite the strength of extant institutional norms throughout the hierarchy of territorial governance. The networked governance paradigm, advanced by Rod Rhodes (1997) to describe modern British politics, represents the second pillar underpinning the concept of city-level Europeanisation. As cities across Britain undergo an inexorable shift from hierarchical government to a more horizontal and flexible form of governance (see, inter alia, Stoker 1999), diverse actor networks and resource dependencies begin to characterise urban politics 1 Adapted from Green Cowles et al (2001).

Marshall 7 and especially the management of regeneration initiatives. Europeanisation, far from reducing local fragmentation in Britain, actually serves to accentuate it, prompting the development of more urban partnerships, widening the number of participants involved in decision-making and encouraging greater multi-level territorial interaction. Thus the Europeanised city is, invariably, also a networked city, as the examples below will show. Four varieties of Europeanisation can be analysed in cities that have significant involvement with EU Structural Funds and institutions: Europeanisation of local government (download; coercive-indirect and voluntary-indirect); Europeanisation of non-statutory actors involved in processes of urban renewal and governance (download; voluntary-indirect); Europeanisation of local regeneration partnerships and networks (download; voluntary-indirect); Europeanisation that engenders dissemination of local practices to the supranational level, and thus to other cities via trans-national networks (upload and crossload ; voluntary-direct). By significant involvement, I refer principally to participation in EU Structural Fund programmes, the URBAN Community Initiative, and Urban Pilot Projects, all of which require detailed long-term interaction with the European Commission s Directorate-General for Regional Policy (DG REGIO). It would be distinctly more difficult to investigate and subsequently analyse processes of Europeanisation in wealthier cities such as London, Bristol or Edinburgh, where inconsistent involvement with EU programmes renders urban actors and institutions far less likely to face the sort of adaptational pressures seen in beneficiary cities like Liverpool, Sheffield or Cardiff. The potential for downward policy transfer (Dolowitz and Marsh 1996; Evans and Davies 1999) between European and urban levels exists principally in those cities which face the daily challenge of supra-national interaction with Brussels officialdom. 2 See, inter alia, Leach and Percy-Smith (2001); Stoker (1999); Stewart (2000).

Marshall 8 Birmingham and Glasgow, with their long histories of European activism and Objective 2 Structural Fund involvement, are thus ideal case studies for an examination of Europeanisation at the urban level. The empirical research upon which this short investigation is based was carried out between December 2000 and December 2002, and involved a broad array of semi-structured interviews, close reading of primary source documentation from European, national and local sources, and extensive literature review. 4. URBAN EUROPEANISATION IN BRITAIN: INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT In the cities of the United Kingdom, Europeanisation takes place against a backdrop of severe domestic institutional constraints. As Radaelli notes, these constraints cannot simply be dismissed, since the analysis of the effects of European public policy on national policy systems should be conducted in parallel to the investigation of endogenous processes (2000: 22). Unlike many of their continental counterparts, British local authorities lack constitutional standing, possess relatively few competences, and are subject to a restrictive ultra vires rule which prevents them from taking action outside those responsibilities expressly granted to them by the UK Parliament. Although considered the most powerful British local governments by virtue of their population size and relative importance to the national economy, urban authorities across the United Kingdom have watched their influence decrease as quangos and private firms have taken over many aspects of policy implementation and service delivery over the past twenty years (Skelcher 1998; Davies 1996; Stewart and Stoker 1995). Cities watched helplessly as successive central governments used their power to reform sub-national government repeatedly in 1975, 1986 and 1995. These reforms first created, and then eliminated, upper-tier metropolitan authorities that had significant strategic planning and economic development functions. As a result, central cities were cut off from their suburban hinterlands and forced to develop narrower policies for everything from economic regeneration to European engagement. At the same time, central government reduced the global financial allocation to urban local authorities for regeneration and renewal, forcing cities to compete with each other for a share of an ever-dwindling resource pie (Bailey 1995; Harding et al 1994). The old redistributive Urban Programme became a competitive Single Regeneration Budget, and local councils had to contribute match-funding to regeneration schemes above and beyond their own capabilities (Pierre 1998). Additionally, public-private partnerships became the principal vehicles for regeneration, although the type of partnership envisaged by Thatcherite planners was driven

Marshall 9 solely by economic considerations rather than the holistic, social motives underpinning EU Structural Fund partnerships (Oatley 1998). The perilous financial state and political independence of British cities has been further complicated since the enthronement of New Labour in 1997. A slew of central government initiatives, most emanating from the Prime Minister s Social Exclusion and Neighbourhood Renewal Units 3, have continually moved the goalposts and criteria for urban regeneration programmes, confusing local actors that depend on central government funding in order to carry out neighbourhood and city-wide regeneration initiatives (Leach and Percy- Smith 2001; Hill 2000; Stewart 2000). The financial squeeze is not the only one with which local authorities have had to contend, however; devolution in Scotland and Wales, coupled with an on-going and asymmetrical plan for top-down regionalisation in England, have forced urban governments nationwide to share many of their competences with new meso-level institutions (Bogdanor 1999; Keating 2001). In summary, urban governments and local actors across the United Kingdom have to contend with the difficulties of domestic institutional flux while simultaneously reacting to European programmes as well. The constantly shifting institutional tableau surrounding urban governance has had a profound impact on the way in which city councils and actors approach the European Union. Urban local authorities and their non-statutory partners are stretched to the limit; pressures for Europeanisation thus face a broad array of mediating institutions at the national level which militate against large-scale deviation from domestic norms. British local authorities have repeatedly looked to the European Commission as a sort of counter to Whitehall, lobbying for Commission intervention in order to ensure that the principles of partnership, programming, concentration, subsidiarity, and especially additionality are respected (McAleavey and Mitchell 1994; McAleavey 1995; Dardanelli 1999). UK central government efforts to undercut additionality in the 1980s and 1990s actually prompted greater activism by local authorities; thus, central government efforts to retain absolute control of Structural Funding encouraged rather than constrained Europeanisation at the local level. Birmingham and Glasgow, for example, consistently lobbied the Commission for greater local input during the agenda-setting, negotiation, implementation and evaluation phases of EU programmes as a counter to central government s gatekeeping. 3 Now housed in ODPM, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Marshall 10 Despite the fact that many urban authorities in the UK have looked to the European Union for support in their battle for greater subsidiarity and locally-designed regeneration programmes, the Commission can only go so far in shaping central-local relations in the UK. While it can create networks and encourage others, involve a wide range of actors, and participate itself, the Commission can do little to shift the long-standing power dependencies between central and local government (Bache et al 1996: 317). This is undeniably true. Institutional constraints and the power of central government notwithstanding, it is equally difficult to disagree with the conclusion that the effect of EU directives and finance was to precipitate a growing Europeanisation of UK sub-national government over time (John 1996b: 133). Financial gate-keeper or not (Bache 1998), Whitehall has not stopped European notions of partnership and long-term programming from gaining ground among urban actors in Britain despite its best efforts to ensure the continued pre-eminence of domestic models. 4 While these EU principles are certainly adapted to the distinct national context into which they are inserted such as the traditionally strong role of UK central government vis-à-vis local actors they nonetheless provoke important, and usually voluntary, changes in British urban governance. 5. DOWNLOAD EUROPEANISATION: THE IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Coercive-indirect Europeanisation: Increasing urban-regional interdependencies in Britain The first category of download Europeanisation has occurred within the formal institutions of local government. Birmingham and Glasgow, like many other cities, lie at the heart of larger metropolitan regions, where their sheer size relative to neighbouring authorities has led to a great deal of mutual distrust. Regional management of successive Structural Fund initiatives a bedrock EU requirement, to the great displeasure of British central government has indirectly helped to lessen intra-metropolitan rivalries and has assisted in the development of regional governance perspectives. In a coercive-indirect manner (coercive because of misfit between UK and EU regional assistance initiatives) European programmes have pushed the UK government and parochial urban authorities to adopt a regional perspective in order to accomplish some of their regeneration goals. While UK urban authorities do not engage in European high politics, unlike sub-national authorities in some other member states, more important for UK local government is the part they have 4 See, amongst others, Tewdwr-Jones and McNeill (2000); Heinelt and Stack (1999).

Marshall 11 played in shaping regional plans, such that they have become recognised as true if not equal partners in the policy implementation and management processes at the regional level (R Smith 1999: 166). This statement is borne out by evidence from our two case cities, where the strategic capacity of local authorities as drivers of regional cohesion appears to have increased as European ideas on partnership and programming were downloaded. Over time, the coercive-indirect nature of this change actually became voluntary-indirect as urban local authorities grew to become metropolitan leaders: as one practitioner remarked, the European element has forced regional identity development. Look at the fact that the Birmingham City Council leader is President of the Committee of the Regions (interview, Local Government International Bureau, 21 June 2002). The European links pioneered by BCC in the 1980s and early 1990s have, thanks to indirect Europeanisation, matured into a broader regional partnership including a joint West Midlands in Europe office and a locally-based West Midlands European and International Forum. These two organisations collaborate with the regional Structural Fund partnership on issues related to regeneration and strategic planning. Similarly, Strathclyde Regional Council s EU-level efforts allowed Glasgow and neighbouring authorities to build the unique, 300-member Strathclyde European Partnership (SEP) and the flexible West of Scotland European Consortium (WoSEC) where common regional positions on European issues are developed. These institutions have developed despite the abolition of regional government in greater Glasgow, indicating the influence of the EU ideal of meso-level partnership on metropolitan governance. As one regeneration professional in the city noted, There s almost a sense in which the European programme is filling a vacuum in terms of economic development for a regional consciousness the role of the Strathclyde partnership is to say that, you may be undermining something happening somewhere else. It allows an awareness that will hopefully impact on what s done to make sure you get maximum effect (interview, SEP, 25 February 2002). Similar sentiments were forthcoming in Birmingham, where the construction of a regional consciousness around the engine of the central city has been assisted by ongoing Europeanisation: Birmingham now operates not as a city, but as a city-region. In an economic strategy sense, we have moved from a city to a regional perspective (interview, BCC, 24 October 2002). European adaptational pressures have thus incentivised urban councils to adopt more strategic and partnership-based methods of working over time,

Marshall 12 transforming an initially coercive impulse the requirements of Structural Funding into a voluntary consensus for greater metropolitan and regional working. Voluntary-indirect Europeanisation: Institutional change within local authorities Within both Birmingham and Glasgow, local authorities adjusted to European norms of direct lobbying, partnership working and long-term strategic programming in a voluntary fashion to benefit from the carrot of Structural Funding. Birmingham City Council (BCC) was one of the first local authorities to mobilise in Europe, opening its first representative office in Brussels in 1984 and using EU leverage to secure an Integrated Development Operation for regeneration as early as 1985 (Martin and Pearce 1992; Martin 1998). Glasgow, a key player within the powerful Strathclyde Regional Council (SRC) 5, followed in 1985 and expanded its involvement in ensuing years thanks to activism on the part of SRC leader Charles Gray. Local authorities in both cities established units dedicated exclusively to European working, ensuring continuous flows of information between Brussels and city fathers while simultaneously developing a crucial lobbying function for regeneration programmes. In part thanks to their early European efforts, the two conurbations secured the largest packages of EU Structural Funding in England and Scotland respectively during both the 1994-1999 and 2000-2006 programming periods. During the past decade, European working has been mainstreamed within both BCC and Glasgow City Council (GCC). BCC s European and International Division bids for and administers Structural Fund projects, liases with other regional actors in the West Midlands, and actively engages with regional and multi-level networks in order to promote economic development and continued European interest in the city. GCC has incorporated European personnel and resources into an integrated department of Development and Regeneration Services, creating a single division for regeneration projects that links European, municipal and domestic renewal projects together for urban and structure planning purposes. These departments go far beyond the simple administration of Structural Funding; instead, they reflect a voluntary-indirect internalisation of the European Commission s programming principle, which favours holistic and strategic approaches to regeneration and economic development (CEC 1997b, 1998). Downward adaptational pressures have caused urban 5 The regional authority, which undertook the majority of European working from 1975-1996 on behalf of Glasgow District Council. When regional councils disbanded in 1996, European competences and personnel

Marshall 13 councils to embrace change and new modes of working, despite the existence of significant Whitehall constraints on local authority actors at European level. As a prominent Birmingham politician intimated, I would argue that Birmingham s European linkage is not simply one of drawing down funding. Instead, it s very much more a process of moving from a parochial city to becoming a city which sees itself in a European league of cities. We talk about our competitiveness and our future in European terms. (interview, 24 October 2002). This re-visioning has been accomplished in Birmingham and Glasgow through the vehicle of the EU Structural Funds which serve, in effect, as the delivery vehicle for adaptational pressures and as an indirect catalyst for institutional adjustment within urban local authorities. 6. DOWNLOAD EUROPEANISATION: NGOs AND LOCAL ACTORS (Voluntary-Indirect) Non-governmental organisations, operating at both community and metropolitan level, have also adjusted their approach to regeneration in a voluntary-indirect manner in response to EU initiatives. The experience of bidding for European Social Fund monies, coupled with extensive participation in both regional Programme Monitoring Committees, lent a new prominence to groups such as the Birmingham Voluntary Service Council and the Glasgow Council for the Voluntary Sector. The partnership requirements of Structural Funding indirectly enhanced the decision-making role of grass-roots organisations in both project planning and implementation. In the words of one interviewee, the Structural Funds have transformed the face of Birmingham. The social partners have realised this too There s a lot of networking between all these different organisations. Time and again you meet people with two, three, four, five different hats linked to European activity (interview, West Midlands in Europe, 29 May 2002). Driven by Birmingham s vocal third sector, community actors from across the region established the West Midlands European Network and Regional Action West Midlands to express the will of the community and voluntary sectors in European and domestic issues, respectively. A one-time top BCC civil servant commented that Absolutely, there is a ratchet effect. That level of investment has increased the pluralism, the number of voluntary organisations, in Birmingham this is partly down transferred to the new unitary Glasgow City Council. For more, see McAteer (1997); Colwell and McLaren (1999).

Marshall 14 to Structural Funds input. The security of some of these bodies has also been helped by Structural Funds money. And it s produced a bigger generation of people used to working in such organisations (interview, 25 June 2002). In Glasgow, meanwhile, non-governmental actors today account for approximately half of the membership of the Strathclyde European Partnership, and play a significant role in the project selection and implementation stages of EU-funded and domestic urban regeneration projects (SEP 2001). Voluntary-indirect Europeanisation among NGOs has not, however, been limited to third sector participation in city- and region-wide structures. At the neighbourhood level, community groups have worked enthusiastically to link into multi-level EU networks which hand out financial assistance in return for adherence to the principles of partnership and strategic programming. The URBAN Community Initiative which operated in North Glasgow and in Birmingham s Sparkbrook area between 1997-1999 is one such example. Although small in budgetary terms, these programmes prompted substantial engagement on the part of community organisations which previously had no political or financial links beyond local government level. There is a kind of institutional culture that is overwhelming, noted one interviewee, but in the long term, however, things are shifting in favour of the social partners. (interview, West Midlands in Europe, 29 May 2002). Thus at both metropolitan and neighbourhood level, the download of European norms of partnership has facilitated participatory modes of working that spur on the transition from urban government to governance. At neighbourhood level, this has been a voluntary process, an inadvertent but highly valued impact of Structural Funding. 7. DOWNLOAD EUROPEANISATION: LOCAL REGENERATION PARTNERSHIPS (Voluntary-Indirect) The increasing participation of non-governmental actors in European initiatives has also spilled over into the development of a wide array of local regeneration partnerships in both Birmingham and Glasgow. This form of gradual, voluntary-indirect Europeanisation has even resulted in a degree of convergence, as the organisation of targeted partnership initiatives in the two cities has become more similar since the arrival of European funding and norms. Whereas Birmingham historically favoured public-private initiatives, focused principally on the construction of flagship city-centre venues (Loftman and Nevin 1998), endogenous models of partnership in greater Glasgow focused more extensively on social inclusion and employment needs in the city s most deprived areas (Pacione 1995). Fifteen

Marshall 15 years eligibility for European Structural Funding, however, has caused actors in both cityregions to gradually and voluntarily adjust their partnership structures in ways that reflect greater consistency with the norms of partnership promoted by the European Commission. In the city of Glasgow, this process entailed the mainstreaming of European, national and local visions of partnership into a single over-arching concept known as the Glasgow Alliance. Itself a broad, consensus-based partnership, the Alliance charts strategic policy and facilitates access to funding and decision-making for its constituent partnership areas. One of the greatest legacies and impacts of the [EU] partnership model in Glasgow, noted one programme manager, is that as a result of the West of Scotland Objective 2 programme, the local economic development companies have sprung up and become a significant force the community approach has showed people a direction, a way that they can work together to create a lasting benefit (interview, SEP, 25 February 2002). Without the Structural Funds as a project catalyst and enabler, most Glasgow and Birmingham local regeneration companies would never have become fixtures of the urban institutional landscape. As a former top BCC official remarked, EU assistance will probably leave a widely distributed and enhanced understanding of what works and doesn t work, drawing partners together in sum, the skills of coalition-building at the micro level (interview, 25 June 2002). There is a significant degree of optimism that urban regeneration partnerships, although started with EU funding, have become broadly institutionalised: They have built in structures and partnerships that will live on, operating with the local authorities and the NGOs noted an LGIB interviewee, who insisted that: the small community groups are doing the best work the local authority is saying they have a commitment to these groups, and will divert the money there (interview, 21 June 2002). While these partnerships continue to reflect the embedded institutional characteristics of their respective cities, they also display a commitment to joint working, capacity-building and holistic thinking that is less evident in non-beneficiary cities across Britain. 6 Whereas many British urban authorities seem to operate to the hymn sheet prepared by central government, those drawing down funding from the European Union display a more strategic approach, reflecting their higher degree of Europeanisation. Involvement with the Structural Funds has prompted many British urban partnerships to think outside the box to bring scarce resources together in order to 6 One such example is Bristol, which has had huge difficulty developing strong partnerships and integrated regeneration programmes. For more see, inter alia, Oatley and Lambert (1999).

Marshall 16 provoke community business development, employment, innovative social projects and physical regeneration.

Marshall 17 8. UPLOAD AND CROSS-LOAD EUROPEANISATION: NETWORKS AND EU INSTITUTIONS (Voluntary-Direct) Successive Structural Fund programmes in Birmingham and Glasgow have also been accompanied by some upload Europeanisation, which has been voluntary-direct as the dissemination of best practice has been a goal of the Structural Funds and has been encouraged by UK Government. As acknowledged by local political leaders and regeneration practitioners, actors in both cities have been keen to feed their experiences back to supranational bodies in order to fine-tune European economic development and regeneration programmes. As one interviewee at Scottish Enterprise Glasgow remarked, We re not doing it just for funding purposes best practices and learning are also very important. We must swap information in order to develop Glasgow as a European city and build a higher, more complete identity. Hence our willingness to submit to an OECD external critique (interview, 1 March 2002). Birmingham, meanwhile, uses its position as a founder member and key contributor to the EUROCITIES network in order to upload and cross-load information about its regeneration successes and failures. Through its leading role in the West Midlands in Europe lobbying partnership, and the fact that the leader of the City Council is also President of the Committee of the Regions, Birmingham s civic leaders have developed a wide array of channels to ensure the upload of their views and practices to the supra-national level. In addition, both cities are now actively working to share their extensive European experience with their counterparts in the accession states by cross-loading best practice using trans-national networks and the financial resources provided by the INTERREG Community Initiative. This, too, is a form of voluntary-direct Europeanisation, as it is an implicit goal of the Structural Funds to disseminate best practice models derived from diverse experiences. Glasgow, via the Strathclyde European Partnership, has developed strong links with regions in Poland and Hungary, providing training to local authority and NGO personnel involved in regeneration, partnership formation, and local capacity-building (SEP 2001).The city s urban renewal innovations have been so widely discussed that Glasgow is now the subject of an extensive OECD Urban Renaissance report, which serves as a vehicle for the upload of the city s regeneration model (OECD 2003). Birmingham and the West Midlands conurbation are also involved in Eastern Europe, and have developed a high profile in the Council of Europe s Congress of European Municipalities and Regions in order to cross-load their own experiences and preferences vis-à-vis regeneration and partnership creation. As one local government observer noted, we know that we can t just say we want this or that from

Marshall 18 Brussels we need to build national and cross-national alliances we ve done a lot of background work which could develop the arguments (interview, West Midlands Local Government Association, 24 October 2002). Although this perspective has taken time to build, it today drives urban and regional actors in UK beneficiary cities to pursue a more visible profile at European level, as there is an increasing recognition that policy preferences can be uploaded via on-going EU programmes and initiatives. 9. EARLY CONCLUSIONS: EUROPEANISATION AT THE URBAN LEVEL This short study has extended the definitions articulated by Ian Bache and Andrew Jordan to permit the analysis of Europeanisation at the urban level, and has tested these definitions on two British cities which have histories of significant involvement with the EU. Various types of download and upload Europeanisation were identified in Birmingham and Glasgow, where both entrenched local government structures and micro-level actors were affected by adaptational pressures arising from EU Structural Fund programmes. While the majority of Europeanisation examined above was voluntary-indirect in nature, with urban actors instigating change in order to maximise EU funding assistance a more coercive process initially forced urban authorities to address regeneration at a metropolitan and regional level. The explanatory framework employed above allows us to better understand actor behaviour and multi-level interaction resulting from Europeanisation processes at the urban level. Although European-urban interaction certainly shifted modes of working at the urban level and enabled local actors to articulate positions independent of other tiers of territorial governance, these value shifts seemed largely confined to European working. The research cited here shows that there has been only a limited amount of spill-over into domestic urban regeneration programmes, which continue to operate according to the path-dependent institutional norms and priorities dictated by the nation-state (see also Marshall 2004, 2003a). Differences between European and national understandings of urban governance and regeneration policy, especially in less communautaire countries like the United Kingdom, will increase in political significance in the not-too-distant future, especially since the EU is likely to gain additional power over aspects of environmental protection and urban affairs. This, in turn, will spark a greater mis-fit between UK and EU policy norms which in turn will spark new adaptational pressures for urban-level Europeanisation.

Marshall 19 The analytical model presented above is generalisable, and can easily be used to examine the degree of fit between existing institutions and EU norms in other British cityregions. Additionally, processes of download and upload Europeanisation, catalysed by adaptational pressures from above and mediated by existing institutions at the domestic level, are by no means limited to the cities of the British Isles alone. As adaptational pressures from the European Union build in cities across the continent, urban Europeanisation is a phenomenon which will play out in Leipzig as well as Leeds. Researchers examining how EU initiatives reshape the domestic arena must be prepared to investigate the impact of European policies on neighbourhoods and cities or forgo an opportunity to study the process of Europeanisation as it occurs at the grass-roots level.

Marshall 20 REFERENCES Bache, I (1998). The Politics of European Union Regional Policy: Multilevel Governance or Flexible Gatekeeping? Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. --------- (1999). The extended gatekeeper: central government and the implementation of EC regional policy in the UK, Journal of European Public Policy 6:1 (March), pp 28-45. --------- (2000). Government Within Governance: Network Steering in Yorkshire and the Humber, Public Administration 78:3, pp 575-92. --------- (2002). Europeanisation: A Governance Perspective, paper to the ESRC/UACES Study Group on the Europeanisation of British Politics and Policy-Making, Sheffield, 29 November 2002. --------- (2003). Europeanisation: A Governance Approach, paper to the EUSA 8 th Biennial Conference, Nashville, March 2003. Bache, I and A Jordan (2004). Introduction: The Europeanisation of British Politics?, paper to the UACES/ESRC One-Day Conference on Britain in Europe and Europe in Britain, Sheffield, 16 July 2004. Bache, I and A Marshall (2004). Europeanisation and Domestic Change: A Governance Approach to Institutional Adaptation in Britain, Europeanisation Online Papers, Queen s University Belfast, No. 5/2004, Bache, I et al (1996). The European Union, Cohesion Policy and Sub-national Authorities in the United Kingdom, in L Hooghe (ed), Cohesion Policy and European Integration: Building Multi-Level Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bailey, N (1995). Partnership Agencies in British Urban Policy. London: UCL Press. Benington, J (2001). Partnerships as Networked Governance? Legitimation, Innovation, Problem-Solving and Co-ordination, in Geddes and Benington (eds), Local Partnerships and Social Exclusion in the European Union, London: Routledge. Benington, J and J Harvey (1994). Spheres or Tiers? The Significance of Transnational Local Authority Networks, Contemporary Political Studies 2. -------- (1998). Transnational local authority networking within the European Union: passing fashion or new paradigm? in D Marsh (ed), Comparing Policy Networks. Buckingham: Open University Press. --------- (1999). Networking in Europe, in Stoker (ed), The New Management of British Local Governance. London: Macmillan. Benz, A and B Eberlein (1999). The Europeanisation of Regional Policies: Patterns of Multi- Level Governance, Journal of European Public Policy 6:2, pp 329-348. Bogdanor, V (1999). Devolution in the United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marshall 21 Bomberg, E and J Peterson (1996). Decision-Making in the European Union: Implications for Central-Local Government Relations. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. --------- (1998). European Union Decision Making: The Role of Subnational Authorities, Political Studies 46:2, pp 219-235. --------- (2000). Policy Transfer and Europeanisation: Passing the Heineken Test? Queen s Papers on Europeanisation, Belfast, No 2/2000. Börzel, T and T Risse (2000). When Europe Hits Home: Europeanisation and Domestic Change, EUI Working Papers, No RSC 2000/56. Bulmer, S (1994). The Governance of the European Union: A New Institutionalist Approach, Journal of Public Policy 13, pp. 351-80. -------- (1995). Four Faces of European Union Governance: A New Institutionalist Research Agenda, European Policy Research Unit Paper no. 2/95. Manchester: University of Manchester. Bulmer, S and M Burch (2000). Coming to Terms With Europe: Europeanisation, Whitehall and the Challenge of Devolution, Europeanisation Online Papers, Queen s University Belfast, No. 9/2000. Bulmer, S. and Radaelli, C. (2004). The Europeanisation of National Policy?, Europeanisation Online Papers, Queen s University Belfast, No. 1/2004, CEC (1997a). Europe s cities: Community Measures in Urban Areas. Luxembourg: Eur-OP. --------- (1997b). Towards an Urban Agenda in the European Union, COM (97) 197 Final, Brussels: CEC. --------- (1998). Sustainable Urban Development in the European Union: A Framework for Action. Brussels: CEC. Colwell, A and G McLaren (1999). The Scottish Experience of Preparing and Implementing Structural Fund Programmes, Scotland Europa Papers, no 18. Dardanelli, P (1999). 'Implementing Subsidiarity: Regional Policy from a British Perspective,' Regional and Federal Studies 9:2, pp. 69-88. Davies, H (ed) (1996). Quangos and Local Government: A Changing World. London: Frank Cass. Dolowitz, D and D Marsh (1996). Who Learns What From Whom: A Review of the Policy Transfer Literature, Political Studies 44, pp 343-357. Evans, M and J Davies (1999). Understanding Policy Transfer: A Multi-Level, Multi- Disciplinary Perspective, Public Administration 77:2, pp 361-385.

Marshall 22 Goetz, K and S Hix (eds) (2001). Europeanised Politics? European Integration and National Political Systems. London: Frank Cass. Goldsmith, M and K Klausen (eds) (1997). European Integration and Local Government. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Goldsmith, M and E Sperling (1997). Local Governments and the EU: the British Experience, in Goldsmith and Klausen (eds), European Integration and Local Government. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Green Cowles, M et al (eds) (2001). Transforming Europe: Europeanisation and Domestic Change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Hall, P and R Taylor (1996). Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms, Political Studies 44, pp 936-957. Hall, T and P Hubbard (1998). The Entrepreneurial City and the New Urban Politics, in Hall and Hubbard (eds), The Entrepreneurial City: Geographies of Politics, Regime and Representation, Chichester: John Wiley. Harding, A et al (eds) (1994). European Cities Towards 2000: Profiles, Policies and Prospects. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Harmsen, R (2000). 'Europeanization and Governance: A New Institutionalist Perspective' in Robert Harmsen and Thomas M. Wilson (eds.), Europeanization: Institutions, Identities and Citizenship, Yearbook of European Studies no. 14. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi Press, 2000, pp. 51-81 Harmsen, R and T Wilson (eds) (2000). Europeanization: Institutions, Identities and Citizenship, Yearbook of European Studies no. 14 Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi Press. Heidenreich, M (1998). The changing system of European cities and regions, European Planning Studies 6:3, pp. 315-332. Heinelt, H and N Staeck (1999). Capacity for Action at the Local Level, in Blanke and Smith (eds), Cities in Transition: New Challenges, New Responsibilities. London: Macmillan. Hill, D (2000). Urban Policy and Politics in Britain. London: Macmillan. --------- (2001). Introduction: European Integration and National Political Systems, in Goetz and Hix (eds), Europeanised Politics? European Integration and National Political Systems. London: Frank Cass. Jeffery, C (2000). Subnational Mobilization and European Integration, Journal of Common Market Studies 38:1, pp 1-24. John, P (1996a). Centralisation, Decentralisation and the European Union: the dynamics of triadic relationships, Public Administration 74, pp 293-313.